Home » Posts tagged 'The war on Twitter' (Page 2)
Tag Archives: The war on Twitter
In his opinion piece at “The Drum” Dr Jason Wilson mounts a spirited defence of the person who has been pretending to be Andrew Bolt on Twitter.
The reason it occasionally antagonises the targets is that mockery is an effective tool for blunting a message, and eating away at the sender’s credibility. Parody accounts for opinion journalists like Bolt embody recognition that they are, or have been significant political actors. With Bolt, it’s probably also a sign of how large he has tended to loom in online political discussion. Bolt’s parodist has, admittedly, a relatively sharp edge compared to say, Penny Wong’s. This faker is suggesting that ultimately Bolt’s positions are irrational. He also critiques Bolt’s position by showing up how predictable, even formulaic, Bolt’s schtick is. The occasional, imagined vignette of life at the Herald and Weekly Times, or his home life are simply ridicule, and we might ask questions about whether that’s effective or not as political parody. Having said all of that, it’s interesting that the faker – at least according to my interview – attributes little or no political significance to what he does.
I found out about this business via twitter and I had this discussion with Jason Wilson on twitter:
Ok I’ll Give Dr Jason Wilson some credit for admitting that there are some limits to behaviour on the internet but I think that he is actually far too much in love with the twitter and other social networking platforms to appreciate their implications to the wider world.
To explore this issue I went to his “interview ” with the author of the fake Andrew Bolt Tweets where he says:
There’s a lot to say about parodying prominent journos – I’ll just offer a few brief thoughts. Parody accounts for opinion journalists embody a recognition that they are, or have been significant political actors. (Certainly, during the years of the previous Howard government, Mr Bolt appeared to have a degree of influence in Canberra beyond that we’d normally associate with a commentator or analyst.) With Bolt, it’s also a sign of how large he looms in online political discussion.
But the parody here has an edge that’s perhaps a little sharper than last week’s example. This faker is suggesting that ultimately Bolt’s positions are irrational. He also critiques Bolt’s position by showing up how predictable, even formulaic, Bolt’s schtick is. The occasional, imagined vignette of life at the Herald and Weekly Times, or his home life are simply ridicule, and we might ask questions about whether that’s effective or not as political parody. Having said all of that, it’s interesting that the faker in this case considers that his parody has little or no political significance.
Considering this and my twitter conversation with the good Doctor It occurred to me that his whole defence of fakes on twitter really hangs on one thing and that is that they be recognisable as obvious parodies. One of the terms of service with Twitter is that you are not allowed to imitate other people and I myself have had to complain about someone (it turned out to be Damian Doyle) pretending to be me on twitter This why they require that fakes be clearly labelled. From the interview and the user name, and photograph its clear that the Fake has not been doing this.
I had noticed this paragraph in his introduction:
Anyway, I’ll analyse it more in the paper, and leave you to draw your own conclusions, for now, from the interview with Andrew Bolt’s creator, who gives his name as John Winston*. Once again, comments are welcome.
Of course once I saw that pseudonym I knew at once who is responsible It is the very same idiot who thought it was so much fun to go around the internet posting comments in my name check the link if you want to see his spotty visage.
But when I read this exchange I could not help but to think that Dr Wilson is being less than frank about his knowledge the history or John Winston/Surname. So I sent him an Email to query this aspect of the story :
I wont publish the text of his response(without his specific consent) but the gist of it is that he is claiming to have a sort of journalistic responsibility to “protect his sources” which is a rather strange response from someone who told me in one of those tweets:
There is an obvious contradiction here If he has no idea who the author of the fake Andrew Bolt is then why should he need to protect his sources? As an academic he has an obligation to full disclosure when he writes about and that has to include the fact that he knows that when the person he is interviewing is not being honest because this question and answer from Wilson’s interview is just such obvious bullshit and the good Doctor must have know it to be so:
Q Do you publish elsewhere, either in or out of character?
He just lets this through to the keeper and does not challenge the lie. Surely as someone who is regularly called as an expert on twitter by the ABC he has a duty to the truth? To do as any journalist does and ask the harder questions rather than just being all pally with the “sources” because he shares their political position and mutual friends. there is also a clear conflict of interest in Jason Wilson citing people he knows, no matter how casually, in his research with out disclosing that fact. He does not have to reveal their identities but pretending that they are unknown to him when the facts suggests otherwise is something that should be acknowledged.
One of the things The good doctor suggested in his response to my email was that I contact the creator of the Fake Andrew Bolt via twitter Which I did by posting this tweet.
And I have thus far received no response. So I thought that I would post comments linking to the same picture at the pure Pure Poison post about the issue:
and I likewise posed the question at the Crikey piece authored by the Fake Andrew Bolt
Strangely “Tobias Ziegler” at PP edited my comment completely out of existence and at the Fake Bolt authored Crikey piece My comment has twice been deleted without explanation, Anyone would think that Crikey has a vested interest in protecting someone 🙄 .
There is nothing wrong at all with wanting to protect one’s sources in research about social phenomena like Twitter but an academic has an obligation to be honest about the sources they use and if it is someone that they know then they should disclose that fact. By the same token If they know that something they are told is a flat out lie like the denial in the good Doctor’s interview piece that “John Winston” has written elsewhere on the net under different names then academic rigour should require that the lie does not go unquestioned.
Perhaps those who want to “research” this medium should have just a little more detachment from their topic rather than just being a fan boy who has managed to find a way to make a living out his love of social networking.
* My Bold
Many twitter enthusiasts out there seem to think that the inanity to which they are so devoted has some sort of special status and that what is said on Twitter should be privileged and not expected to matter in the wider world….
Would a returned Christ take up the habit? Or would he be inclined to chose another way to announce his return?
How could any religious message be reduced to 140 characters (including spaces) and still be meaningful?
Examples in the comments please.
Regular readers may recall that I copped a bit of flak about a previous post that pointed out that tweeting while at the wheel may be dangerous, well this story makes that look a trivial and rather safe practice by comparison.
As authorities nationwide warn motorists of the dangers of driving while texting, Florida Keys law enforcement officers add a new caution: Don’t try to shave your privates, either.
Florida Highway Patrol troopers say a two-vehicle crash Tuesday at Mile Marker 21 on Cudjoe Key was caused by a 37-year-old woman driver who was shaving her bikini area while her ex-husband took the wheel from the passenger seat.
“She said she was meeting her boyfriend in Key West and wanted to be ready for the visit,” Trooper Gary Dunick said. “If I wasn’t there, I wouldn’t have believed it. About 10 years ago I stopped a guy in the exact same spot … who had three or four syringes sticking out of his arm. It was just surreal and I thought, ‘Nothing will ever beat this.’ Well, this takes it.”
If that weren’t enough, Megan Mariah Barnes was not supposed to be driving and her 1995 Ford Thunderbird was not supposed to be on the road.
The day before the wreck, Barnes was convicted in an Upper Keys court of DUI with a prior and driving with a suspended license, said Monroe County Assistant State Attorney Colleen Dunne. Barnes was ordered to impound her car, and her driver’s license was revoked for five years, after which time she must have a Breathalyzer ignition interlock device on any vehicle she drives, Dunne said. Barnes also was sentenced to nine months’ probation.